undo_apply

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the write nature and risk level, states that execution is audited under its own risk tier, and mentions the one-time-use constraint and dry-run preview capability.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a brief Args list to efficiently document each parameter. No sentence is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully equips an agent to decide when to use the tool, how the undo executes, what parameters mean, and what constraints apply (one-time, dry-run, audit).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does. It defines undo_id's source, dry_run's purpose, and target's passthrough behavior, adding meaning beyond the bare type definitions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Apply a recorded undo') and the mechanism ('dispatching its inverse tool'). It distinguishes this from the sibling undo_list tool by focusing on executing an already-recorded undo rather than listing or creating them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives concrete guidance: obtain undo_id from undo_list or _undo_id, use dry_run=True to preview, and expect the undo to be consumable only once. It does not explicitly name when not to use it versus other tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.